Insights From the Development of a Dynamic Consent Platform for the Australians Together Health Initiative (ATHENA) Program: Interview and Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dynamic consent has the potential to address many of the issues facing traditional paper-based or electronic consent, including enrolling informed and engaged participants in the decision-making process. The Australians Together Health Initiative (ATHENA) program aims to connect participants across Queensland, Australia, with new research opportunities. At its core is dynamic consent, an interactive and participant-centric digital platform that enables users to view ongoing research activities, update consent preferences, and have ongoing engagement with researchers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the development of the ATHENA dynamic consent platform within the framework of the ATHENA program, including how the platform was designed, its utilization by participants, and the insights gained. METHODS: One-on-one interviews were undertaken with consumers, followed by a workshop with health care staff to gain insights into the dynamic consent concept. Five problem statements were developed, and solutions were posed, from which a dynamic consent platform was constructed, tested, and used for implementation in a clinical trial. Potential users were randomly recruited from a pre-existing pool of 615 participants in the ATHENA program. Feedback on user platform experience was gained from a survey hosted on the platform. RESULTS: In the 13 consumer interviews undertaken, participants were positive about dynamic consent, valuing privacy, ease of use, and adequate communication. Motivators for registration were feedback on data usage and its broader community benefits. Problem statements were security, trust and governance, ease of use, communication, control, and need for a scalable platform. Using the newly constructed dynamic consent platform, 99 potential participants were selected, of whom 67 (68%) were successfully recontacted. Of these, 59 (88%) agreed to be sent the platform, 44 (74%) logged on (indicating use), and 22 (57%) registered for the clinical trial. Survey feedback was favorable, with an average positive rating of 78% across all questions, reflecting satisfaction with the clarity, brevity, and flexibility of the platform. Barriers to implementation included technological and health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the successful development and testing of a dynamic consent platform that was well-accepted, with users recognizing its advantages over traditional methods of consent regarding flexibility, ease of communication, and participant satisfaction. This information may be useful to other researchers who plan to use dynamic consent in health care research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".